is this what the nation really wants?

[Will Robinson]

It started in the early 70's...Carter had a super majority in Congress, Clinton x2, Obama x2 also had a super majority in Congress. Where is the results?

The founder and one time extreme supporter of Amtrak said in 2001 it is a failure and a politicians tool not a viable alternative to air travel.

If the air travel industry wants to open a new route to meet market demand they simply reprogram some navigation software and start flying. Maybe hire some more terminal employees and even get a new terminal node constructed at the destination airport.

If the rail industry wants to start a new route to meet market demand.....well....a couple years at least and billion dollars in political pork later the train rolls in to meet the demand that once was....

Amtrak is a pork project that is based on an outdated industry for its stated purpose.

[callmeslick]

It started in the early 70's...Carter had a super majority in Congress, Clinton x2, Obama x2 also had a super majority in Congress. Where is the results?

this is where US politics goes past simple party politics. Amtrak is a hard sell even to dems in places like New Mexico, Minnesota, etc.

Amtrak is a pork project that is based on an outdated industry for its stated purpose.

what is outdated is our entire concept of rail travel, and it's benefits to the economy, economic mobility and the like. Sad that we have to watch China, Japan, Europe all manage to think outside that outmoded box, to the benefit of their entire nation(s).

[Krom]

Other countries spend money on infrastructure, in America a very few people make money on it at the expense of everyone else. It is just how things roll here, even if it doesn't really work.

Like if you went out and looked for bids to fix the infrastructure in America, you would get proposals from the telecom industry saying we could just have everyone travel via ultra high definition teleprescence for a modest $10/gigabyte fee per user. Or the prison industry could suggest locking almost everyone up in prison would reduce the demands on the existing roads and wires. Or the medical industry would suggest drugging the entire country into not giving a damn about anything but paying their insurance. Or the military industrial complex would say drafting everyone and sending them to endless wars in the middle east as a solution.

Nobody does a thing about it because no matter who has a majority in congress, industry, corporations and their absolute demand for short term return on investment are calling all the shots.

[woodchip]

I keep hearing this phrase "short term return on investment" as though that is the norm. Tell that to the auto companies, Caterpillar, the aerospace industry, Nike or any of a thousand other companies that have been in business for years and watch how you get laughed out of the room. OTOH some startup might look for such returns if they don't plan on staying in business very long or some Democratic front company like Solyndra.

[woodchip]

No reason one shouldn't be able to hop onto a high-speed train from, say, Atlanta to Chicago, which doesn't require jumping onto 3 or 4 separate trains to complete the run. I should be able to get to New Orleans quicker than the day and a half it currently takes me on the Crescent. As someone noted above there has been a battle ongoing for decades between rail development and pushing air travel. I'm in the camp for rail getting primacy, and am quite aware that it is going to cost a lot of money. However, while Will and others decry subsidizing people riding Amtrak now, it is a core support system for financial commerce in the East. Expanding it as I'd like would support commercial growth in a lot more places than the DC to Boston corridor.

Why in gods name would someone want to take a train from Atlanta to Chicago? Book the right flight ahead of time and it would probably cost less than taking the train and certainly faster. There are bus companies like Greyhound that offer cheap costs and last I checked they aren't subsidized.
Airlines aren't subsidizes nor is the freight train industry. Now what does Amtrak lack that the others don't? One word....competition.

[Tunnelcat]

Well unfortunately all that wonderfully 'objective' insight and speculation you just shared is off the mark.
The current average Amtrak commuter earns above average pay. The average ticket though has a $60 subsidy applied as a discount to the price. And the trains only do a thriving business in the places where those kind of commuters are.

Out there in the land of the actual average person they use cars and busses to get to work and the trains don't even have tracks in most of those places. But the taxpayers in ALL those places are paying 1 billion dollars a year to support slick and his other above average commuters to ride cheaply.

More fun facts:
The rail workers on the Amtrak trains are payed at least 1.6 times what the European railworker counterparts earn. In some places 92% of the Amtrak ticket price is spent on the labor.
The 'cadillac benefit packages' they get are close to a third of the cost.
You remember that phrase right? Cadillac policies that during the election campaign Obama said he was going to tax them out of existence because he assumed only fat cat republican white men had them....until his union supporters called him to heel and informed him his party won't get the votes they control unless he exempt them from his attacks.

But I digress, it's 'all tea party republicans making a mess of the country'. Right?

And now you will pay some lip service to disassociate yourself from such an obviously incorrect assesment ....before you go right back to supporting it anyway like a good little democrat.

I'd like to ask you a question. The Northeast Corridor is the most used commuter train system in the whole country. What would happen if all those commuters lost that train service and had to resort to buses, planes and cars, like the rest of the nation, most of which doesn't have the luxury of fast commuter trains? Where do you think all those cars and buses would fit on our already congested interstates and freeways on the Northeast area? Interstates and freeways already at capacity and falling apart too? To humor you, if there was more competition with commuter trains, where would you put all the extra competing train tracks? You know that nobody wants to share, or maintain a common infrastructure. Our roads and bridges are already an overused mess and no one is stepping up to pay for fixing it. Too much money to invest for no gain to most capitalists.

Also, that 92% figure you quote about labor rates comes from the CEO of Amtrak. Of course he wants to cut wages as a solution. It's a quickie fix. To do that, he'll need to create the usual resentment against those laborers making those higher wages, just so there can be justification for those wages to be cut. He may make a little more profit, but he'll have a whole bunch of unhappy workers. Not a train service I want to ride on. You'll notice he wants to do all this without mentioning any cuts to that hallowed upper tier management, including his own salary of $350,000 a year. That's been the usual recent the "solution" to every business woe and that's why our middle class is disappearing, deliberate wage erosion at the bottom and middle, wage aggregation at the top.

You've told me about Amtrak from the tea party capitalist point of view, so how about what Amtrak looks like from the socialist point of view? Every side has an opinion, yet no one can come together for a solution.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/0 ... r-a03.html

Why in gods name would someone want to take a train from Atlanta to Chicago? Book the right flight ahead of time and it would probably cost less than taking the train and certainly faster. There are bus companies like Greyhound that offer cheap costs and last I checked they aren't subsidized.
Airlines aren't subsidizes nor is the freight train industry. Now what does Amtrak lack that the others don't? One word....competition.

I'd take a high speed train over an airliner if it was easier, nicer and more convenient. Flying on a airplane right now is NOT enjoyable. It's like being packed into a flying sardine can, with all the stink, hassle and irritation that goes with it, and that's AFTER you get through the parking, airport and TSA security 2 to 3 hours in advance. Competition hasn't helped the airlines do better service one wit, has it? In fact, profit motive has devolved the airline experience into a riding in cattle cars torture fest. People put up with it because there's no viable alternative. People are a bunch of sheep willing to put up with crappy service for cheap seats. Typical American thinking. Cheaper is the only alternative. That's how trains could compete too. Make the longer trip a more enjoyable and pleasurable experience for the passengers. I'll bet there would be a market. As for Amtrak, completion IS one of the reasons it's being bled dry, besides political neglect and infighting.

As for riding the bus, have you ridden in a bus lately? I have. Dirty and slower than a snail under the control of sleepy and grouchy drivers comes to mind.

[Spidey]

One word....competition.

No, it’s lower ridership because we are a private transportation culture as opposed to a public transportation culture like in other countries. If everyone took public transportation to work, there would be plenty of money generated, and the subsides would be much less.

At one time rail ruled, it transported everything from mail to people, then the government built the interstate road system…and the fate of passenger rail was sealed.

At one point in time passenger rail was on the verge of extinction, with freight not far behind. The trucking unions had an iron grip on freight, only the fact that people didn’t like their goods held hostage every few years by the unions, and higher oil prices gave freight rail a new life.

Passenger rail is still on life support, the only thing left is commuter rail, and it costs a fortune because we can’t serve two masters at the same time…IE: we can’t be a car culture and a public transportation culture at the same time.

Of course the endlessly deep pocket of the taxpayer solves this problem. Personally I understand the need for a robust commuter system, but I see no need for high speed commuter rail, unless it can pay most of the operating costs with ticket sales.

[callmeslick]

I keep hearing this phrase "short term return on investment" as though that is the norm. Tell that to the auto companies, Caterpillar, the aerospace industry, Nike or any of a thousand other companies that have been in business for years and watch how you get laughed out of the room. OTOH some startup might look for such returns if they don't plan on staying in business very long or some Democratic front company like Solyndra.

you have utterly no clue what you're babbling about. Every last one of the examples cited above have fallen prey to short term(ie-quarterly profit) thinking, and has sacrificed long-term viability for the short term bottom line. Want to talk long-term planning, look to DuPont and some others, who have avoided the trend, at least mainly.

[Tunnelcat]

Spidey, how long before we choke on our car culture? We can't possibly maintain what we're doing for much longer.

[callmeslick]

Spidey, how long before we choke on our car culture? We can't possibly maintain what we're doing for much longer.

it already has cost us trillions, tens and tens of trillions, plus gotten us involved far too heavily in regions of the world that have come back to bite us. Sure, you need cars in the vast rural regions of the nation, but with more and more people in the urban centers, it is LONG overdue that we alter our transportation focus radically.

[Spidey]

Spidey, how long before we choke on our car culture? We can't possibly maintain what we're doing for much longer.

Loaded question...sorry

But I see no reason to "choke" on the car culture, we only need to adapt to the new realities.

[Tunnelcat]

Or be forced to adapt.

[Spidey]

Spoken like a true collectivist...

Well, we could all give up our cars, that would leave everyone plenty of money to pay for their train tickets, at the inflated price needed to reduce government coughtaxpayercough subsidies, but that would also involve giving up an incredible amount of freedom the automobile gives us, good luck with that sale, it’s not one I would ever try to make.

[Will Robinson]

...
I'd like to ask you a question. The Northeast Corridor is the most used commuter train system in the whole country. What would happen if all those commuters lost that train service and had to resort to buses, planes and cars, like the rest of the nation, most of which doesn't have the luxury of fast commuter trains? Where do you think all those cars and buses would fit on our already congested interstates and freeways on the Northeast area?

Why do you introduce the false premise that the few routes that are viable would disapear if we rid ourselves of the ones that aren't viable?
There is no need to address your scenario because it is a red herring...a typical DBB rabbit hole...
Let the government stop mandating rail service to regions that don't want rail service as they have shown by not riding the rails... Let politicians deliver something viable to generate jobs, votes and campaign donations instead of burning tax revenue on the 'trains to nowhere'...

...Interstates and freeways already at capacity and falling apart too? To humor you, if there was more competition with commuter trains, where would you put all the extra competing train tracks? You know that nobody wants to share, or maintain a common infrastructure. Our roads and bridges are already an overused mess and no one is stepping up to pay for fixing it. Too much money to invest for no gain to most capitalists.

Well, take the 1.6 billion we won't need for Amtrak trains to nowhere and start with that. Then use the Bailout # 3 or #4 money that the administration said we need to authorize or the sky would fall....then they proceeded to not build infrastructure OR use it all for the bailout and instead set it aside for a pork slush fund...to pay off union supporters etc. instead. Do a little research you will find a lot of that money-we-had-to-authorize-immediately-or-else.... never was used.
Get President 'shovel-ready' to break out his shovel (and the slush fund) and build the bridges and roads since over 90% of americans ride roads not rail...

...Also, that 92% figure you quote about labor rates comes from the CEO of Amtrak. Of course he wants to cut wages as a solution. It's a quickie fix. ....

Why worry about the wages when I'm saying cut the whole damn route where applicable. The viable routes make good profit...no need to cut wages.

.

[Will Robinson]

The proper response to this charade of a thread, in my opinion, is to point the question back at slick and say Is this kind of discourse that serves the nation best?

To exploit a tragedy to try and blame the 'other party' for it in some kind of self serving partisan game when Amtrak has had, for decades, plenty wrong with it and plenty of cause for not pouring money into it!
The Tea Party didn't crash that train. Some dumbass asleep at the switch most likely did.
We can't know for sure because his union has maintained that a video camera on the switch is an invasion of his privacy...

[callmeslick]

The proper response to this charade of a thread, in my opinion, is to point the question back at slick and say Is this kind of discourse that serves the nation best?

ideally, no. However, it is refreshing to even hear ANY discourse around the matter.

To exploit a tragedy to try and blame the 'other party' for it in some kind of self serving partisan game when Amtrak has had, for decades, plenty wrong with it and plenty of cause for not pouring money into it!
The Tea Party didn't crash that train. Some dumbass asleep at the switch most likely did.
We can't know for sure because his union has maintained that a video camera on the switch is an invasion of his privacy...

actually, there seems to be a complex mix of events that happened, but that isn't the point. Modern, even less-than-state of the art technology would have prevented the accident from occurring. All experts seem to agree on that. And, yes, the Tea Party loons bear some responsibility for that tech not being in place.

[woodchip]

I keep hearing this phrase "short term return on investment" as though that is the norm. Tell that to the auto companies, Caterpillar, the aerospace industry, Nike or any of a thousand other companies that have been in business for years and watch how you get laughed out of the room. OTOH some startup might look for such returns if they don't plan on staying in business very long or some Democratic front company like Solyndra.

you have utterly no clue what you're babbling about. Every last one of the examples cited above have fallen prey to short term(ie-quarterly profit) thinking, and has sacrificed long-term viability for the short term bottom line. Want to talk long-term planning, look to DuPont and some others, who have avoided the trend, at least mainly.

So the examples I quoted are only worried about what happens from quarter to quarter. I think the only one babbling is master businessman slick. Just so you become illuminated quarterly reports are more for the shareholders and people who might be interested in buying their stock. Keeping thinking the reports somehow show the companies are only interested in staying alive for the short term.

[callmeslick]

sorry, Woody, but most every example has been driven to some sort of bankruptcy or reorganization due to short sighted planning(save Nike), and being around for 30 years is nothing. We need to return to the idea of planning for 10 years at a time, and putting in place corporate structures that keep a viable concern profitable for generations.

[Tunnelcat]

Spoken like a true collectivist...

Well, we could all give up our cars, that would leave everyone plenty of money to pay for their train tickets, at the inflated price needed to reduce government coughtaxpayercough subsidies, but that would also involve giving up an incredible amount of freedom the automobile gives us, good luck with that sale, it’s not one I would ever try to make.

Yeah, forcing Americans to give up their cars would be like trying to take heroin from an addict, it's impossible without a lot of pain and whining. But sometime in the future, we'll run out of oil, which will force the issue. Since Americans are so bad at any kind of proactive planning for the future as a collective nation, we'll have some serious issues to deal with in economics and transportation. Americans would rather sit on their butts until some problem bites them in the ass, then whine about why they weren't warned beforehand. Boo hoo. They'd also rather sit in traffic, choking on fumes and fight for parking spaces than build a good commuter system that uses less fuel per person and gives a better and safer ride. But I guess Americans revel in being forced up against the wall and coming up with a last minute heroic solutions like a bunch of cowboys. Maybe not the best solutions, but solutions that are the best for a bunch of freedom-loving-I-don't-give-a-damn-about-the-next-guy cowboys. Society as a whole, meh.

[Vander]

I would love to see some sort of study on the hidden costs of a barrel of oil. Direct military costs, and the opportunity cost of foreign policy based around resource acquisition are costs not found in the price of a barrel of oil. Not sure how such a study could encompass such a topic, but I'm willing to bet some direct but hidden costs could be identified.

Could the relatively small subsidy of Amtrak actually save money by way of the efficiencies gained? Would greater subsidy create greater utilization (lower ticket prices) of under used lines, thereby raising efficiency?

[Spidey]

Who says the future of private transportation has to be in oil.

What we need to do is get over this stupid fear of nuclear power, and get on with the program.

[Krom]

Yeah, we can thank Fukushima for burying nuclear power for another 30 years.

Never mind if we built more nuclear power in the US, it would stand a fairly reasonable chance of not being in a tsunami or earthquake zone to begin with so a Fukushima type accident would be highly improbable save for events which would probably cause humanity to go extinct even without a power plant melting down (meteor/comet impacts).

[Ferno]

It's not really Fukushima that's done it, Krom. It's that every time the word "nuclear" is used, it is almost invariably followed by "bomb"... and so people end up with this image in their mind.

"saddam has the bomb, iran has the bomb, korea has the bomb. Oprah is giving bombs to everybody"


case in point. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1244163 ... ette-butt/

[woodchip]

sorry, Woody, but most every example has been driven to some sort of bankruptcy or reorganization due to short sighted planning(save Nike), and being around for 30 years is nothing.
This from a guy who never ran a business. Auto companies have been around for a 100 years and yet run into problems like the Great Recession of 2008.

We need to return to the idea of planning for 10 years at a time, and putting in place corporate structures that keep a viable concern profitable for generations.

This is slick speak for, " We need the federal govt to run them". Sorry slick but communist countries like the old USSR tried their version of 5 year plans and failed.

[Foil]

Just now saw this.

No reason one shouldn't be able to hop onto a high-speed train from, say, Atlanta to Chicago...

Why in gods name would someone want to take a train from Atlanta to Chicago? Book the right flight ahead of time and it would probably cost less than taking the train and certainly faster.

From my experience in Japan, there are plenty of reasons to take something like a Shinkansen bullet train rather than a domestic flight. They're considerably more comfortable ( particularly for a 6'3" guy like me ) than planes, and the ride is smoother. They're far less affected by weather/turbulence, so unlike flights, there aren't frequent delays/cancellation. Considering the extra time one has to spend at airports these days vs. the relative ease of jumping on a train, only the very longest trips would be any faster via air travel.

Personally, now that I've travelled on them, even if a flight was faster, I'd rather take a bullet train. Yeah, they are that much better.

[Tunnelcat]

Yeah, we can thank Fukushima for burying nuclear power for another 30 years.

Never mind if we built more nuclear power in the US, it would stand a fairly reasonable chance of not being in a tsunami or earthquake zone to begin with so a Fukushima type accident would be highly improbable save for events which would probably cause humanity to go extinct even without a power plant melting down (meteor/comet impacts).

Well, building nuclear plants anywhere on the West Coast if the U.S. would be very hazardous just due to earthquake risks. Here in Oregon, we're overdue for a 9.0 quake. Plus, there's still that pesky problem of what to do with the nuclear waste, unless of course, we conquer fission. But nuclear is losing out to cheaper natural gas and coal right now, so we'll either poison our water to get the natural gas with fracking, or poison our air and water burning that coal and storing it's waste product, ash. We're already converting back to these forms of energy while not even trying to plan for the future of nuclear power, so pick your poison.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... n-the-u-s-

[Tunnelcat]

.Personally, now that I've travelled on them, even if a flight was faster, I'd rather take a bullet train. Yeah, they are that much better.

You obviously didn't try to ride a commuter train at rush hour.

[youtube]E7kor5nHtZQ[/youtube]

[Foil]

Actually, yes, we did. All over Tokyo and other places, for over a week.

There were certainly times the commuter trains were crowded (Tokyo Station in particular, during the weekdays), and plenty of times that people were rushing to get to catch a train, but we never saw anything like that scene. The trains there are incredibly punctual, so jumping on the next train a few minutes later was always an option.

[Tunnelcat]

Some of those people obviously couldn't wait. They'd rather be packed like a sardine and get to their destination slightly earlier.

But more to your point, my husband got to ride the Shinkansen from Kobe to Tokyo instead of going to the airport. He thoroughly enjoyed it and he even beat the airplane to his destination. The people were nice and helpful, even to a couple of Gaijin like my husband and his American HP coworker.

[Jeff250]

You obviously didn't try to ride a commuter train at rush hour.

Ha, reminds me of some of the subways in China. The experience can definitely be a bit of a squeeze. Getting into the subway car is sometimes the easy part. Now imagine if you're in the middle and need to get off at the next stop. You need to plan it out multiple stops in advance. But this experience should be distinguished from a longer rail train where you buy tickets by the seat.

From my experience in Japan, there are plenty of reasons to take something like a Shinkansen bullet train rather than a domestic flight. They're considerably more comfortable ( particularly for a 6'3" guy like me ) than planes, and the ride is smoother. They're far less affected by weather/turbulence, so unlike flights, there aren't frequent delays/cancellation. Considering the extra time one has to spend at airports these days vs. the relative ease of jumping on a train, only the very longest trips would be any faster via air travel.

Personally, now that I've travelled on them, even if a flight was faster, I'd rather take a bullet train. Yeah, they are that much better.

Having some experience on the Beijing-Shanghai HSR, I would completely agree. Unlike taking a flight, the experience of taking a train is not so badly regulated as to be specifically designed to alienate and humiliate the passenger as much as possible. Even when a train ride is longer than a flight, you can spend almost all of that time comfortably doing work, unlike a flight where most of the time is wasted waiting in a line to wait to get into another line to wait for something else.

[vision]

Trains are cool. I hate flying. Too much of a hassle. I would gladly take a train over flying to most destinations in the US.

[woodchip]

Me wonders Foil experienced or partook of any close quarter groping on the trains

[snoopy]

From my experience in Japan, there are plenty of reasons to take something like a Shinkansen bullet train rather than a domestic flight. They're considerably more comfortable ( particularly for a 6'3" guy like me ) than planes, and the ride is smoother. They're far less affected by weather/turbulence, so unlike flights, there aren't frequent delays/cancellation. Considering the extra time one has to spend at airports these days vs. the relative ease of jumping on a train, only the very longest trips would be any faster via air travel.

My break-even for preferring to drive over flying is right around 7 hours drive... I'd apply about the same rule (maybe up to 9 - 10 hours) for a train ride...

[Foil]

Me wonders Foil experienced or partook of any close quarter groping on the trains

My wife wasn't with me on the trip, so no.

[Spidey]

I think it would be great to have high speed commuter rail, but remember it’s the taxpayer that foots a lot of the bill.

Know what I’m saying?

[Ferno]

Trains are cool. I hate flying. Too much of a hassle. I would gladly take a train over flying to most destinations in the US.

Some time ago, I was planning a trip to the US for an event. I saw the price of the tickets and remembered my last flying experience. Having to go through three-four hours waiting at the airport to be screened by someone who thinks you're up to no good to be stuffed into a bus with wings for hours on end is not my idea of a good trip. I'd rather take a train.

[vision]

I think it would be great to have high speed commuter rail, but remember it’s the taxpayer that foots a lot of the bill.

Gladly. I use public transportation every chance I can. I get aggravated when I have to drive my car. Public trans is cheaper and safer, and depending on the time/distance I can usually get some work done too.

[Jeff250]

I think it would be great to have high speed commuter rail, but remember it’s the taxpayer that foots a lot of the bill.

Know what I’m saying?

It seems like if two large cities built a high speed rail between them, then it would be to their mutual economic benefit, even if at the cost of surrounding cities. Would they come out ahead in the end?

[Spidey]

If that’s the case then let those two cities pay for it.

I have no real problem with subsidized rail, but I do object when someone thinks they should be getting top of the line service, while someone else is paying for it.

[callmeslick]

If that’s the case then let those two cities pay for it.

I have no real problem with subsidized rail, but I do object when someone thinks they should be getting top of the line service, while someone else is paying for it.

ummm, that's how a nation builds a world-class infrastructure, and since EVERYONE benefits to some extent from it, everyone SHOULD pay for it to be built. That is, assuming everyone gives a crap about the generations to come after them.